(snip)"Making random changes in a gene is quite likely to stop it working, but very unlikely to give it a novel function." So Ioseb's point is probably again that gain-of-FCT mutations are uncommon. I already addressed this in my previous post: yes, but so what? Just because gain of function mutations are less common doesn't mean they don't happen (as even Behe acknowledges), and it doesn't mean they're too rare to support evolution. If Ioseb thinks they are too rare, he's going to need a lot more evidence than Behe's paper to make his case.

Quote

9) My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what?

Exactly. Evolution clearly requires gain-of-FCT mutations, so if we never saw such mutations in lab studies, that might raise some questions. But we do see such mutations, so that's all fine. The fact that we see more loss-of-FCT mutations isn't a problem for evolution.

Quote

Thanks for your imput on this

Marty

You're welcome. I hope that's helpful.

Creationists have this strawman / misunderstanding / deliberate misrepresentation of life / evolution / Creation as a constant forward march to perfection, i.e., us.

They forget or ignore that 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. We are the 1%! :-)

So the rarity of beneficial mutations comes as no surprise to anyone, really.

Forget "survival of the fittest", evolution is just "reproduction of the fit enough", aka live long enough to get laid.

eta "mis"

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad